Refund on exported replacement goods cannot be denied for procedural defects when original filing was timely and export was undisputed.

Refund on exported replacement goods was held not to be time-barred because limitation had to be computed from the original filing made within one year of export, not from resubmission after rectification, and rejection on limitation could not rest on a ground not raised in the show-cause notice. The absence of a letterhead was treated as a non-mandatory procedural defect under Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT), and minor procedural lapses could not defeat a refund where export and duty payment were undisputed. Foreign exchange realisation was held irrelevant for free replacement goods. The refund was therefore allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim on exported replacement goods was time-barred or otherwise liable to be rejected for procedural defects such as absence of letterhead, alleged lack of intention to claim refund, and non-realisation of foreign exchange.

Analysis: The refund claim was first filed within one year from the date of export, and limitation had to be computed from the original filing, not from the date of resubmission after rectification. Rejection on limitation could not be sustained when the show-cause notice had not raised that ground. The requirement of filing the request on letterhead was found to be non-mandatory under Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 and, at most, procedural. Where export of the excisable goods and payment of duty were not in dispute, minor procedural deviations could not defeat a legitimate refund claim. Foreign exchange realisation was also irrelevant because the goods were supplied as free replacement of defective goods.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and could not be denied on the stated procedural grounds; the refund was correctly allowed.

---